Legal Opinion

Lum v. United States Fire Insurance

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided March 19, 1895PublishedCited by 7 opinions

Error to Alpena. (Kelley, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtLong, J.

This is an action to recover upon a fire insurance policy. July 16, 1891, plaintiff had issued to him by the defendant company a policy upon his household furniture in his dwelling house in Bay City. That policy expired on July 16, 1892. It was a Michigan standard in *399the usual form. In. May, 1892, plaintiff removed from Bay City to Alpena, leaving his furniture and house at Bay City in the keeping of his agent, Benjamin F. Smith. Some time before the expiration of this policy the agent ■of the defendant company at Bay City, Mr. O. F. Forsyth, had concluded to renew it if the plaintiff so…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. O'Brien v. Ohio InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1883
  2. Home Insurance v. CurtisMichigan Supreme Court · 1875
  3. Mallory v. Ohio Farmers' InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1892
  4. Howland v. DavisMichigan Supreme Court · 1879

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Douville v. Farmers' Mutual Fire InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1897
  2. Scottish Union & National Ins. Co. v. BejcyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1953
  3. Pacific National Bank v. Aetna Indemnity Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1903
  4. First Baptist Church v. Citizens' Mutual Fire InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1899
  5. Lessnau v. Catholic Order of ForestersMichigan Supreme Court · 1910

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API